TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:Just in case any of you are unfamiliar with Captains Mast, Office Hours or NJP (all terms used for the judicial process that they refused), accepting any of these in lieu of a court-martial is an automatic presumption/acceptance of guilt. The Commanding Officer can let you off completely or throw the book at you, but only in a limited manner, as the punishments allowed are less than those in a Court Martial.
I am not a lawyer or a military lawyer, but that is my understanding of the process.

Purplehood,

If there is a commanding officer in any of our services who believes that when a servicemember accepts NJP in lieu of trial by court-martial he may be presumed guilty, or "accepts" his guilt, then this is a commanding officer who needs some schooling in the military justice system. He, in my opinion, would be a disgrace to his office.

I hope you recognize that I am not questioning your perception of the system. I simply suggest that you may have had one or more COs who failed the system by either failing to educate those he commanded, or grossly misunderstood basic concepts of military law and his duties as a commander, one of which was to periodically have Article 15, UCMJ, and others, explained to members of his command.

Most respectfully,

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Just in case any of you are unfamiliar with Captains Mast, Office Hours or NJP (all terms used for the judicial process that they refused), accepting any of these in lieu of a court-martial is an automatic presumption/acceptance of guilt. The Commanding Officer can let you off completely or throw the book at you, but only in a limited manner, as the punishments allowed are less than those in a Court Martial.
I am not a lawyer or a military lawyer, but that is my understanding of the process.

Purplehood,

If there is a commanding officer in any of our services who believes that when a servicemember accepts NJP in lieu of trial by court-martial he may be presumed guilty, or "accepts" his guilt, then this is a commanding officer who needs some schooling in the military justice system. He, in my opinion, would be a disgrace to his office.

I hope you recognize that I am not questioning your perception of the system. I simply suggest that you may have had one or more COs who failed the system by either failing to educate those he commanded, or grossly misunderstood basic concepts of military law and his duties as a commander, one of which was to periodically have Article 15, UCMJ, and others, explained to members of his command.

Most respectfully,

Jim

I am not sure what it is that you are disputing. I don't see this as a matter of perception. If you accept "Office Hours", you are admitting to guilt and accepting whatever the CO determines. I admit that in many cases the CO can elect to believe your explanation of events and choose not to do anything, but regardless, it is in effect an admission of guilt where you throw yourself on the mercy of the court (the CO).

AndyC wrote:Pity just shooting the little troll wasn't an option

Oh, oops - did I say that out loud?

Why... Yes, you did.

However, I am old and deaf, and if asked, I don't remember it.

Of course, It think that it does without saying that, increasingly, trolls are not going to survive capture as more of these kinds of cases crop up.

Purplehood wrote:I am not sure what it is that you are disputing. I don't see this as a matter of perception. If you accept "Office Hours", you are admitting to guilt and accepting whatever the CO determines. I admit that in many cases the CO can elect to believe your explanation of events and choose not to do anything, but regardless, it is in effect an admission of guilt where you throw yourself on the mercy of the court (the CO).

Purplehood,

Let me try to clarify this, as I am convinced that we do not have a personal dispute here.

With the greatest respect for your many years of service, your assertion is simply incorrect. I can only refer you to Article 15(e) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: nonjudicial punishment may be appealed to the imposing commander's next superior authority, and the appeal must be promptly decided. In the case of the more stringent punishments authorized at NJP the case must be first referred to a Judge Advocate, a lawyer, for his advice.

I am not criticizing you, Purplehood, and I do hope you recognize this. I am criticizing your commanders (seeing your years of service, I assume there have been many). If a service member, particularly one of many years of honorable service, has such a conception, or perception, of Article 15, it appears to me that a succession of commanders, have been derelict in their responsibility under Article 137 of the UCMJ, which, in my opinion, suggests that they themselves violated the UCMJ.

Article 137 requires a commander to see that Article 15(e) is explained to enlisted members of his command on the member's initial entry on active duty or the member's initial entrance into a duty status with a reserve component. It must be explained again after the member has completed six months of active duty or after a member has completed basic or recruiting training, and again at the time of each reenlistment.

I have stepped in here, Purplehood, because I respect so highly our nation's code of military justice. It is greatly misunderstood by many persons, both in and out of the military, and I would hate to have our members of this forum be misled. I have said many times, and I will say again, that if I were ever to be accused of having committed a serious crime, and I were given my choice of the court before which I would be tried, it would be a court-martial.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I am not sure what it is that you are disputing. I don't see this as a matter of perception. If you accept "Office Hours", you are admitting to guilt and accepting whatever the CO determines. I admit that in many cases the CO can elect to believe your explanation of events and choose not to do anything, but regardless, it is in effect an admission of guilt where you throw yourself on the mercy of the court (the CO).

Purplehood,

Let me try to clarify this, as I am convinced that we do not have a personal dispute here.

With the greatest respect for your many years of service, your assertion is simply incorrect. I can only refer you to Article 15(e) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: nonjudicial punishment may be appealed to the imposing commander's next superior authority, and the appeal must be promptly decided. In the case of the more stringent punishments authorized at NJP the case must be first referred to a Judge Advocate, a lawyer, for his advice.

I am not criticizing you, Purplehood, and I do hope you recognize this. I am criticizing your commanders (seeing your years of service, I assume there have been many). If a service member, particularly one of many years of honorable service, has such a conception, or perception, of Article 15, it appears to me that a succession of commanders, have been derelict in their responsibility under Article 137 of the UCMJ, which, in my opinion, suggests that they themselves violated the UCMJ.

Article 137 requires a commander to see that Article 15(e) is explained to enlisted members of his command on the member's initial entry on active duty or the member's initial entrance into a duty status with a reserve component. It must be explained again after the member has completed six months of active duty or after a member has completed basic or recruiting training, and again at the time of each reenlistment.

I have stepped in here, Purplehood, because I respect so highly our nation's code of military justice. It is greatly misunderstood by many persons, both in and out of the military, and I would hate to have our members of this forum be misled. I have said many times, and I will say again, that if I were ever to be accused of having committed a serious crime, and I were given my choice of the court before which I would be tried, it would be a court-martial.

Jim

I am completely agree with preference for a Court Martial over NJP. I think what you are getting at is simply what I omitted, that you can indeed appeal the findings of an Article 15.
Yes, over the course of many years of service I was exposed to numerous classes on the intricacies of the UCMJ to include a stint at the SNCO Academy in Quantico (which arguably was considered quite in-depth). I stand by my assertion that you are subject to the whims of the CO, but failed to add your absolutely correct statement that it can be appealed.
That is why I completely support the Navy SEALs decision to refuse NJP and demand Court Martial instead. Their rights are greatly expanded and they do not in effect admit guilt.